WARWICK STAKES - 1400M

[Rogan Josh]

No. Horse Trainer Jockey Barrier Weight
1 LONHRO John Hawkes D Beadman 3 58
2 EXCELLERATOR Gai Waterhouse J Cassidy 2 58
3 DEFIER Guy Walter C Munce 7 58
4 CARNEGIE EXPRESS (NZ) David Payne C Brown 5 58
5 BEDOUIN John O'Shea H Bowman 1 58
6 SHAGS Paul Perry L Beasley 10 58
7 WYANGAN PINES Guy Walter D Beasley 9 58
8 CLANGALANG Gerald Ryan M Rodd (a) 4 57.5
9 HALF HENNESSY Bede Murray R M Quinn 6 57.5
10 REPUBLIC LASS Guy Walter G Boss 8 55.5

DEFIER (3) a good chance to topple the fav. LONHRO (1) with EXCELLERATOR (2) not too far away. My roughie - CARNEGIE EXPRESS (4). Good punting!

[william]

(1)LONHRO-(8)Clangalang-(4)Carnegie Express-(2)Excellerator
REGARDS
WILLIAM

[umrum]

lonhro
defier
excellerator

easiest tri of the day. no value in race except defier straight out but can he beat lonhro. not tomorrow i dont think unless there is a genuine speed in the race.

if there is he can win.

lonhro so versatile where he can settle. defier is a little bit more one dimesional and really is a 2000 metre horse where lonhro is a classic miler whose class gets him to 2000 metres.

little O to win but be wary of shorts odds. if defier is at 9/2 and excellerator at 5/1 or better I think a dutchie could be the way to go.

anyways going to be a great race.

good puntin'

umrum

[alblyn]

lonhro, wyangan pines, defier & carnegie express

[huntr]

HI ALL
LONHRO, DEFIER, CLANGALANG, HALF HENNESSY

[Raw Instinct]

Not that I am trying to say in anyway that Lohnro isn't a great horse but it sure would be nice to see a field actually take him on for a change rather than hand the race to him.


Just about every group race he won in sydney last campaign came in 7 horse fields or less with no speed in the race it was all just left to be a sit and sprint race we all know Lohnro has a great turn of foot.

I can't see him getting beat today just don't see the speed in the race to make it an honestly run race Lohnro should win this easily with Defier, Shags and Excellerator fighting out the placings.

[crash]

Anyone even thinking of wasting money on these type of races ["any price a winner"] is trying to win races, not money. Hardly worth skiting about is it ... "got on at $1.70 and won!". Yeh? ...Wow!

The Bookies and Tab. will love you all Spring.

My two-bobs worth of personal opinion anyway.

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-08-24 04:51 ]</font>

[becareful]

Nothing wrong with a $1.70 winner - still equates to a 70% POT for the race. TAB will love you what ever you bet on but you will end up with more money in your pocket at the end of Spring if you concentrate on the $1.70 runners instead of the $7.10 runners! All you have to do is work out the worthwhile investments from the overhyped ones.

Just my personal opinion :smile:

[crash]

..and if you win 7 out of ten of those races Becareful you have won what? Peanuts for the risk. You may as well buy Telstra shares that pay a fully franked 17%.
Besides, the "champion"[?]in Syd. almost lost it.
Between $1.70 and $7.10 lays an ocean of betting ground [as you know] to look for winners in. What do you suggest, we only have two betting camps? Those looking for $2.00 and less and those looking above $7.00? I'll take the between thanks and good luck with your below $2.00 shortners!

My point was and I think it valid if you read between the lines, is that accepting very short odds on selections in fields which are often very open races [and how open was yesterday in Syd. and Melb. will runaway T/Bias on both] the Bookies and Tabs will have a field day. As they did Yesterday.
Bias and openness considered, $1.70 was an underlay as they where on most of the other favourites [that lost by the way]. Anyone who took the $1.70 on that winning bet, lost chasing other favotites [Lets not get carried away will hindsight beting as if the $1.70 was the only bet].

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-08-24 14:24 ]</font>

[becareful]

I actually left that particular 1.70 pick alone - did not meet my criteria for a bet. However my only two "serious" bets yesterday (of the four-legged variety anyway) were both less than $3.00 on the tote. I finished the day with 2 bets for 2 winners paying 3.30 (IAS fixed price - payed 2.80 on Tabcorp) and 2.43 (IAS DiviPlus) so a POT for the day on my serious betting of 186%.

I am not saying that this is the best approach - it is just what suits me best at the moment. There seems to be a huge "phobia" about betting on short priced horses but as long as you are selective they can be a great profit maker. If you look at the statistics the short priced horses show the smallest loss (without filters) - therefore you don't have as much of a disadvantage to overcome before you start making profit.

As has been said many times here before - you just need to find your preferred area and exploit it regardless of whether others think it can or cant be done!

[topsy99]

after watching caulfield yesterday it was unlikely you could get away with a $1.70 bet with any reliability.
the track early favoured inside leaders. e.g. naden from wide barrier and super elegant from wide barriers led up as did earlier winners.

[crash]

I agree with you Becareful [and Topsy].

I didn't take the $1.70 either, an underlay considering a short half head win [I would expect a win with a leg in the air for that price!]. Lost 12% of T/O Yesterday but picked it up+ today without the open fields and unwanted excitement.

I have no problems with short prices in general as I accepted $2.10 and $2.90 plus the place price for two of my winners today. A little experiment with the place that Divi+ is stuffing up! They pay more for the win but LESS for the Place. I was down $30 on winnings that I would have got back betting TAB for both Win and Place. Swings and bigger slides [?].

My original point was that it's very easy to get carried away with the big Saterday Races during the Spring, that are often very open affairs.

Cheers.










size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-08-24 18:36 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-08-24 18:50 ]</font>

[Mr. Logic]

I have my doubts about there being any major bias at Caulfield yesterday. Just because a few leaders won early does not automatically make it a biased track and hard on the rails the place to be. Brief Embrace didn't have any problems making up lengths out wide in the straight to win. Or has the bias suddenly changed from hard on the rails to out wide in the straight?

[legion]

Crash,
I disagree with your assertions Re taking short prices. The only important thing is whether or not $1.70 is longer than the horses real chance of winning. If yes then its a good bet.If no then it is as you say an underlay. But what I really want to know is how you get a 17% franked divi out of Telstra? Im only getting around 5%.

[The Late Mail]

On 2003-08-24 18:27, Mr. Logic wrote:
I have my doubts about there being any major bias at Caulfield yesterday. Just because a few leaders won early does not automatically make it a biased track and hard on the rails the place to be. Brief Embrace didn't have any problems making up lengths out wide in the straight to win. Or has the bias suddenly changed from hard on the rails to out wide in the straight?

Mr. Logic, The sooner punters dismiss this track bias as absolute bull**** the sooner they will start backing more winners.The bias is caused by the speed of the leaders and has nothing whatsoever to do with the track.The bias experts failed to comment on the first and last races at Caulfield when both winners came from near last.No wonder 98% are losing.

[The Late Mail]

On 2003-08-24 18:35, legion wrote:
Crash,
I disagree with your assertions Re taking short prices. The only important thing is whether or not $1.70 is longer than the horses real chance of winning. If yes then its a good bet.If no then it is as you say an underlay. But what I really want to know is how you get a 17% franked divi out of Telstra? Im only getting around 5%.

Legion,Any punter who keeps backing short priced horses MUST go broke.The fact is that no more odds on favorites win than 5/1 favorites.I've been betting for 45 years and have never seen anyone who can win over a period of time backing short priced horses, although most have tried.As for these horses being overlays, the amount that are is zero due to public hype. Lonhro won but in my opinion his true price was 2/1 and the runner up Clangalang $22 was priced at 4/1, which was a much better each way bet than Lonhro straight out.

[crash]

Legion,

Well there IS a shortener for you, 5% now ? Like I said, dont take underlays.

Did I say I had Telstra shares anywhere in my post?

As regard to the bias at Caufield, I think a lot of Jockies had the instruction..." don't return to scales without rail white on the side of your boot!".
They moved the rail back in from the last meeting on a rain affected and choped track which provided advantage until the later races when it was all choped and the quicker inside Alley was disappearing.

Generaly, I agree with the Late Mail, track Bias is an overated consideration [except on the strathair at M/V!].

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-08-24 22:14 ]</font>

[becareful]

On 2003-08-24 21:52, The Late Mail wrote:
Legion,Any punter who keeps backing short priced horses MUST go broke.The fact is that no more odds on favorites win than 5/1 favorites.

You are joking aren't you? Around 50% of odds-on runners win (higher if you only look at Saturday Metro) and the LOT is only around 2%. Less than 15% of 5/1 favourites win and the LOT is around 12% (from memory - cant be bothered running the stats this late on a Sunday). Whilst few of my bets are actually in odds-on territory the $2.00-$3.00 range is certainly a fertile "feeding ground" if you know what to look for.

[Chrome Prince]

On 2003-08-24 21:52, The Late Mail wrote:
Legion,Any punter who keeps backing short priced horses MUST go broke.I've been betting for 45 years and have never seen anyone who can win over a period of time backing short priced horses, although most have tried.As for these horses being overlays, the amount that are is zero due to public hype. Lonhro won but in my opinion his true price was 2/1 and the runner up Clangalang $22 was priced at 4/1, which was a much better each way bet than Lonhro straight out.


You obviously haven't met me!
:smile:

[umrum]

value is coming our way punters.

spring is almost here.

[legion]

Crash,
Telstra has never paid anything like %17. Stick to punting on the TAB buddy where they rob you blind by excessive takeouts and rounding down.
Hey Crash wanna know how to win a small fortune?
If you keep using your figures the answer is.
Start with a big one.

[crash]

Legion,



I was told that was what Telsta paid. It was wrong ? Big deal.
If you want to pull people up for a wrong quote on a stock divi. and for it to mean anything, you could try a stock market forum.

I also said I didn't say I had any Telsta shares.
You are reading one thing and "seeing" another ...whatever you want.
Thats ok by me.

Cheers.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-08-29 17:01 ]</font>

[legion]

Crash,
I used the Telstra example to show that you have a disregard for accuracy. I never said you actually owned any.In fact that was obvious by your %17 gaff.Your other assertions in this thread are similarly innacurate. Lets look at taking $1.70 and winning 7 out of ten times. This represents %19 profit on turnover assuming level stakes.Hardly peanuts. In fact in todays market which is much more accurate than 20 years ago it is an excellent result.I am certain your own figures are not that good.Especially if you are betting on the place tote as you mentioned.If ever there was a case for not taking unders the place tote is it.
You also said that Lonhro won by a short half head when suggesting the race was an open affair. He won by almost half a length and was looked after in the last bit.After all it was his first assignment for the spring.The fact is the higher the class of horse the truer the form and these races are not usually as wide open as you suggest.

[crash]

Legion,

If [other peoples] "accuracy" of opinion is an issue, what next? Peoples spelling [mine is terrible]?

Some accuracy of your own then might not go astray.

If you had have read all the threads in this forum here, you would know that I am not a place bet man. I have been trying an experiment for the past two weeks [1wx4p] as you would have seen by my last two Sunday's "for what it's worth" post and what I have written in other threads. That exercise is now over.

As for having a go [ by obvious innuendo] at my strike rate, well my runs are on the board for all to see [and yours?]. Anyone who has the courage to posts tips here has nobody to answer to.

Anyway, This forum is not a competion nor a place to have to prove any sort of accuracy in "meaning" to anybody. If I want to say 7 out of 10 odds-on bets are peanuts in my opinion [and those bets were over months I might add and that was the context of my point], then I can because {most] people realize that I am expressing my opinion only.
You are free to disagree but only God has ownership of what is "accurate" opinion or what is the value of "peanuts" and if in "my opinion" Lonhro was unders and the race was open, then that is my opinion [and that of others too by the way including the Trainers foreman] and I am free to express it, arn't I?

Our views all differ [thank God] and the forum needs no accuracy of opinion Policeman so I'll agree to disagree with you ok?
We should also remember that this thread was created regarding the Warwick Stakes so if you feel so strongly about "accuracy" perhaps you should start you own thread on the subject.

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-08-30 11:46 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-08-30 13:07 ]</font>